02 Jun 09
With movies, I often watch a movie in the cinema, borrow it once at the DVD library and later buy it (from the DVD library at about 1/3 the price of what it goes for in the shops). I currently own around 300 original DVDs.
So I effectively pay for some movies three times. People I know, download the movie and watch it before it even gets to the cinema.
If all movies were freely distributed to all who wanted, would there still be a movie business?
If you go to the cinema and don't like the movie, do you ask for your money back?
For both movies and music there is also TV and radio as a source of income for the artist. Should TV and radio stations also be allowed to copy at no cost?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadEr... all movies are freely distributed to all who want them and yet there's still a movie business.
If all movies were freely distributed to all who wanted, would there still be a movie business?
I envisage blockbuster films in the future where the leading actor doesn't get $20 million. Nowhere near it.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFIf your point is that there is no bright line between what's morally wrong and what isn't in terms of appropriating intellectual property, then yes, you've made that point well.
Is it fair for me to have paid the same for something that I then found I didn't like after the one and only time I played it (indeed assuming that I made it all the way to the end of the album) [take a breath]... as I would pay for an album that I play 50 times because of the pleasure it gives me.
Do we pay all that money for the right to hear it once? Any e ...[text shortened]... are exactly before we pay?
Do we have an obligation to buy music that we don't want?
So, why can't we simply draw the line as follows: If you're breaking the laws passed by the duly elected representatives of the country in which the art is produced, you're on the wrong side of the line. Otherwise, you're fine.
Is that line arbitrary? Perhaps. But it is what artists rely on when they produce their art. What will hurt or help them in the long run (someone else made the point that more exposure helps them) is beside the point. Compliance with the law is what the artist relied on in making the decision to produce the art.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76Hand on your heart time. Name the last song you watched on youtube, and before you did, did you advise the copyright owners that you were watching their product for free and would they mind allowing you permission to do so in order for you to enjoy said entertainment with a clear conscience?
So, why can't we simply draw the line as follows: If you're breaking the laws passed by the duly elected representatives of the country in which the art is produced, you're on the wrong side of the line. Otherwise, you're fine.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadHand on your heart time. Name the last song you watched on youtube, and before you did, did you advise the copyright owners that you were watching their product for free and would they mind allowing you permission to do so in order for you to enjoy said entertainment with a clear conscience?
For both movies and music there is also TV and radio as a source of income for the artist. Should TV and radio stations also be allowed to copy at no cost?
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by kmax87I'll admit that I'm no expert in IP law, but are you sure it's illegal to listen to music posted on youtube?
Hand on your heart time. Name the last song you watched on youtube, and before you did, did you advise the copyright owners that you were watching their product for free and would they mind allowing you permission to do so in order for you to enjoy said entertainment with a clear conscience?
In any case, I'll admit that I'm not perfect when it comes to observing other people's copyrights. I don't download music or movies from illegal websites; but I admit I've picked off a song here and there. That doesn't make it right though. It also doesn't mean I can't be in favor of enforcing it against systematic infringers like Kazaa and the like.
02 Jun 09
6 edits
Originally posted by sh76youtube requires you the subscriber, to have either ownership of the copyright, or have the permission of the copyright holders when uploading anything on their website. A cursory inspection of the music posted reveals a swag of material that people have recorded off their TV's and then been kind enough to convert to the appropriate format for the enjoyment of their peers.
I'll admit that I'm no expert in IP law, but are you sure it's illegal to listen to music posted on youtube?
Given that youtube is not invisible, and given that it beggars belief that even the smallest fraction of a percentage of music held on their servers were legally obtained, the fact that they continue to flourish does not make the viewing of any material posted any more legitimate. This begs the question, why are they allowed to stay in business? Is there a conspiracy afoot to turn the world of internet users into criminals?
Seriously youtube is the new radio, that no-one when I was growing up at least, ever had a problem in dropping a blank cassette into the stereo and recording Casey Kasem doing American Top 40 to grab the newest latest hits.
Did my taping off the radio kill the music biz? No. Not even when FM stereo became common. The reason was simple. As a kid I never just wanted the song, I also wanted it to sound good. A radio tape was never going to better the sound of a brand new Album. Well regardless of what we think of the kids, or the quality of modern music formats, (mp3 yuch!) there will always be a market for good music sounding great. Hell the music doesn't even have to be good. Listening to it sounding great is its own reward, that no amount of youtubing will satisfy.
The reality is that while older people are wrangling over the morality or lack of, of copyrighted IP on file-sharing sites ( and youtube when you have an add on like unplug installed in your browser, is just that), the new music business model is to allow the general public to do all the spade work and upload all the entertainment material they want. In an instant their marketing gurus can work out what's popular, what people want. Its the perfect social laboratory and they don't pay one cent to access its statistics. Its right there for them on each clip, to see how many people have bothered to view the latest whatever. How easy is it now for them to know which artist to promote? Wait for some fan to upload their song and watch the hits. You work in A&R and you have three artists and you want to know which of three marginal acts should probably get the biggest piece of what's left in your promotional budget. Leak their matrial onto youtube and see who gets the best traction and you can get the worlds best focus group to tell you. As Bart would say its easier than shooting fish in a barrel.
So while we( people of a certain age) wring our hands over the morality/legality, the music executives are calmly sitting back and letting the rats do their work for them and do the bulk of the reasearch in designing and perfecting a better rat trap! And the beauty of it all, is they have us so confused that we are actually made to feel sorry for them!
You're kidding right!
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76I work hard too but I don´t get the legal protection of receiving income on my efforts for 70 years.
It's amazing to me that so many people on this thread are, directly or indirectly, defending the practice of stealing someone else's intellectual property.
People work hard and invest a lot of time and money to produce things like music and movies and they do so with the understanding that their intellectual property will be protected by existing IP laws. If ...[text shortened]... s product for your own use without paying for it in contravention of applicable law.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76your missing the point. This whole "oh don't hurt the poor artist" thing is just wrong. The "people" your stealing from have been exploiting artists for the last 100 years. The record companies have been stealing from the artists. If you want to hide behind a completly unjust law then fine. Technology is finally changing in the music artists favor. From recording to distribution and the record companies are freaking out and they have the power to keep the status quo. It is unjust from top to bottom.
If your point is that there is no bright line between what's morally wrong and what isn't in terms of appropriating intellectual property, then yes, you've made that point well.
So, why can't we simply draw the line as follows: If you're breaking the laws passed by the duly elected representatives of the country in which the art is produced, you're on the wr ...[text shortened]... ance with the law is what the artist relied on in making the decision to produce the art.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by StTitoSince when is it morally appropriate to justify theft by saying that the victims of your theft obtained the money immorally?
your missing the point. This whole "oh don't hurt the poor artist" thing is just wrong. The "people" your stealing from have been exploiting artists for the last 100 years. The record companies have been stealing from the artists. If you want to hide behind a completly unjust law then fine. Technology is finally changing in the music artists favor. From recor ...[text shortened]... eaking out and they have the power to keep the status quo. It is unjust from top to bottom.
03 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76It quite clearly isn´t theft.
Since when is it morally appropriate to justify theft by saying that the victims of your theft obtained the money immorally?
To steal something you have to take it from the previous owner. Illegal downloading still leaves the product with the original owner so you haven´t stolen it. You have copied it.
You can argue that you haven´t paid for something you otherwise would have but I think we all know that the vast majority of illegally downloaded "content" would not have been bought anyway.
If you are illegally downloading something you probably would never had paid for it.
Actually I don´t argue for illegal downloading simply because it is illegal and you shouldn´t break the law but I do feel the music distribution companies have been trying to take me for a ride for years and I have no sympathy for them at all.
03 Jun 09
Originally posted by WheelySo the crime is not to have removed it from the original owner's possession. The crime is to have heard it.
It quite clearly isn´t theft.
To steal something you have to take it from the previous owner. Illegal downloading still leaves the product with the original owner so you haven´t stolen it. You have copied it.